MAYOR ISSUE REVIVED; SUPPORT GROWS FOR VOTERS, NOT COUNCIL, TO CHOOSE COUNCIL RETHINKS MAYORAL ISSUES.

Byline: Angela M. Lemire Staff Writer

SANTA CLARITA - The Santa Clarita City Council is buzzing with talk of making the mayor's office elective, rather than rotating the honor among council members, for reasons that range from political differences to the increasing demands of the role.

Just seven months ago, the council voted down a proposal to put the issue before voters, but now most members say they favor the idea and want to reconsider.

Unless a special election is called, voters could not decide the issue before April 2002, officials said.

``If we have to wait four to six years before we first see an elected mayor, then that would be a shame,'' Councilwoman Jill Klajic said. ``It will allow the good ol' boys to keep doing what they're doing. The system we have now snubs its nose at the voters.''

The five council members, each elected to a four-year term, have been passing the mayor's gavel among themselves for a year at a time since the city was incorporated in 1987. In May, Councilman Frank Ferry's motion to put the issue on the ballot was defeated 4-1. In a 3-2 vote on Dec. 12, the council passed over Klajic - by tradition, in line for the mayor's role - and reappointed Mayor Jo Anne Darcy. Councilwoman Jan Heidt supported Klajic.

Klajic said she voted against Ferry's proposal to put the issue on the ballot because, at the time, she felt residents did want to elect the mayor directly, rather than just elect five council members directly.

But Klajic said she has changed her mind because she thinks a hostile political climate has engulfed the council.

Klajic and some supporters say Darcy, Ferry and Councilwoman Laurene Weste inappropriately robbed Klajic of her rightful turn as mayor. Supporters say that Klajic's great popularity at the polls shows voters want her in a leadership role.

Heidt agrees that the mayoral position has become politicized, and she says it is wrong that Klajic was skipped over.

Heidt said she continues to oppose separate mayoral elections, however, because she fears that only candidates financially backed by developers would prevail.

Instead, she wants mayoral appointments to return to set rotations. ``People are elected to the council because they are qualified to serve in a leadership role,'' Heidt said.

Ferry, who continues to support separate mayoral elections, says the next best system is for the council to choose a mayor whose positions usually mesh with those of the council majority. He said he also thinks that the mayoral term should run for four years and that rotating it every year is disruptive.

``Citizens have a right to choose their mayor . . . but if you're going to do it by appointment, that spokesperson should speak for the majority of the council,'' Ferry said. ``It's hard to have a mayor who works against a consensus of the majority.''

Darcy said she has changed her stance to support direct election of the mayor by the voters because she sees that demands on the mayor's time have grown more rapidly than she foresaw.

``I've always felt the city eventually would need it, but I think the workload has grown to that point where we have no choice,'' Darcy said.

Darcy said it's time to turn the mayor's role into a paid, full-time one with more power. Mayoral responsibilities have increased greatly in the last 12 years, she said. The mayor deals with more correspondence from residents and more planning projects, government conferences and activity in community organizations.

Darcy recommended, however, that a decision about putting it on the ballot not be made pending outcome of the council elections in April.